THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM v. THE STATE OF ASSAM

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. J C GOGOI Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA Date : 20.02.2023 ORDER Heard Mr. J.C. Gogoi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. R.J. Baruah, learned Addl. P.P. for the State.

The petitioner, Kalyan Jyoti Sonowal, who was shown arrested on 17.01.2023 in connection with Dharamtul P.S. Case No. 62/2022 under Page No.# 2/3 Sections 379 IPC read with section 23(a) of the Petroleum Act, 1934 is seeking regular bail under Section 439 I.P.C.

The learned Addl. P.P. has produced the case diary and has opposed the prayer for bail on the ground that the petitioner is habitually involved in theft of petroleum from OIL pipeline by puncturing oil pipeline and committing theft of oil.

On a perusal of the case diary, it is seen that by damaging crude oil pipeline, which is a public property, large scale pilferage of crude oil was committed. The three incidents in quick succession were as follows:- a. Theft of crude oil was committed from pipeline in Nagaon and accordingly, Nagaon PS Case No. 1392/2022 was registered under Section 379 IPC read with Section 23 of the Petroleum Act, 1934. b. On 02.10.2022, another incident of theft of crude oil from pipeline was committed in Dharamtul area for which Dharamtul P.S. Case No. 62/2022 was registered under Section 379 IPC read with Section 23 (a) of the Petroleum Act, 1934. c. Yet another similar theft was committed in Raha on 02.01.2023 and accordingly, Raha P.S. Case No. 1/2023 was also registered under Section 379 IPC read with Section 23 of the Petroleum Act read with Section 15(2) and 15(4) of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipeline (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 as amended by Petroleum and Minerals Pipeline (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Amendment Act, 2011 and Sections 3(2)(b) of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 was registered on 02.01.2023.

The I.O. also strongly suspects that the petitioner is also Page No.# 3/3 involved in similar other theft of petroleum products in other places. The witnesses examined by the I.O. have specifically implicated the petitioner of being involved in the offence.

Therefore, as it appears from the case diary that the I.O. suspects that the petitioner is also suspected to be involved in similar incidents of theft of crude oil from pipelines, in the nascent stage of investigation, the Court is not inclined to release the petitioner on bail.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is suffering from various ailments and he is also suffering from “right sided grade-I hydroureteronephrosis”. In the context of his illness, the petitioner may be well advised to move the jurisdictional Court for an appropriate direction for providing him with treatment. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that the petitioner was got lured by offer made by the prime accused to supply diesel at low price to his Company, where he is working as Junior Officer (Safety) and he was arrested only on the basis of suspicion because he had received calls from the prime accused, however, the said projection does not impress the Court because the petitioner did not disclose to the I.O. the statement which he has made in para-4 of this bail application.

Therefore, the prayer for bail is rejected at this stage.

Case diary is returned. JUDGE Comparing Assistant